Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that no-args calls return a link for browser login, and that passing a token enables session-only access. It also notes that the config approach yields a non-expiring connection. It does not contradict any annotation, and adds practical behavioral context such as the need for user involvement in browser login.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but information-dense. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently explains the two authentication methods in a single sentence each. No wasted words, every clause contributes to guiding the agent's use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers both modes of authentication, the meaning of the parameter, and the no-args behavior. It also addresses the integration context for IDE agents. There is no obvious missing information relevant to using the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines 'token' as an optional string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT for session login, and that omitting the token retrieves the auth link. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema alone lacks, covering the only parameter and its absence.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent via browser login or token. It specifies the resource (authentication) and the two distinct modes (permanent config vs. session token), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' which serve different functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: for a permanent connection, add the token to the server config as a header; for a session-only login, pass the token with { token: '<jwt>' } or call with no args to get the link. This clearly explains the usage scenarios and the trade-off between persistence and session scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.